Steven W. Ponds, Appellant,
State of Kansas, Appellee.
BY THE COURT
Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law over which
an appellate court's scope of review is unlimited.
Under the facts of this case, where the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal from the district court's summary denial
of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion while a timely motion for
reconsideration was still pending in district court, this
court has jurisdiction to review the district court's
original judgment denying the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. But we
lack jurisdiction to review the district court's later
ruling on the motion for reconsideration because the
plaintiff did not file a separate notice of appeal from that
the district court summarily denies a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion,
an appellate court has unlimited review to determine whether
the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively
establish that the movant is not entitled to relief.
prisoner's attempt to relitigate the same claims in a
K.S.A. 60-1507 motion that were decided in the prisoner's
direct criminal appeal is barred by the doctrine of res
from Sedgwick District Court; James R. Fleetwood, judge.
L. Falk, of Law Office of Roger L. Falk, P.A., of Wichita,
J. Gillett, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett,
district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for
Atcheson, P.J., Malone and Leben, JJ.
W. Ponds appeals the district court's summary denial of
his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Ponds argues that the district
court erred when it summarily denied his motion and that he
is entitled to a hearing. The State first argues that this
court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because
Ponds' notice of appeal was untimely. The State also
argues that the district court correctly denied Ponds'
motion. We disagree with the State's jurisdictional
claim, but on the merits we affirm the district court's
and Procedural Background
2009, the State charged Ponds with 14 felony charges,
including aggravated burglary, attempted burglary, as well as
several counts of burglary and theft. Before trial, Ponds
sought to suppress: (1) evidence of his footwear because he
claimed the officers lacked probable cause to support his
arrest; and (2) evidence from GPS tracking devices attached
to his vehicles because the search warrant application failed
to provide a substantial basis for the issuing magistrate to
conclude there was a fair probability contraband or evidence
would be found as a result of those devices. After an
evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Ponds'
motion to suppress the evidence.
bench trial in 2012, the district court found Ponds guilty of
all charges. The district court sentenced Ponds to a
controlling term of 244 months in prison. Ponds filed a
direct appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and
the district court's rulings on the motion to suppress
evidence. This court affirmed his convictions and sentence in
State v. Ponds, No. 109, 965, 2015 WL 249836 (Kan.
App. 2015) (unpublished opinion), cert. denied 136
S.Ct. 2024 (2016) (Ponds I).
his direct appeal was pending, Ponds filed a motion to
correct an illegal sentence, asserting that the district
court erroneously classified his pre-1993 convictions as
person felonies in calculating his criminal history score.
The district court summarily denied relief, and this court
affirmed that decision in State v. Ponds, No. 114,
761, 2016 WL 6822176 (Kan. App. 2016) (unpublished opinion)
3, 2017, Ponds filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Ponds
challenged: (1) the district court's refusal to suppress
his footwear because of a lack of probable cause; (2) the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions; and
(3) the district court's denial of his request to
suppress the GPS evidence for lack of probable cause.
26, 2017, the district court filed a journal entry summarily
denying Ponds' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, finding that the
three issues raised were the same issues Ponds raised on
direct appeal. The district court also found that Ponds'
motion contained several conclusory statements, unsupported
by any legal argument or evidentiary basis.
17, 2017, Ponds filed a timely motion for reconsideration of
the district court's K.S.A. 60-1507 judgment. Then on
November 16, 2017, while the motion for reconsideration was
still pending, Ponds filed a notice of appeal of the district
court's "decision to deny his 60-1507 motion."
January 29, 2018, the district court denied Ponds' motion
for reconsideration, finding that it lacked jurisdiction
because of the pending appeal. On March 14, 2018, this court
granted Ponds' motion to docket his appeal out of time.
Ponds did not file a separate notice of appeal from the
district court's denial of his motion for
appeal, Ponds argues that the district court erred when it
summarily denied his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Ponds argues that
his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, when read broadly, asserts a claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel that can only be
resolved with an evidentiary hearing. He also argues that in
summarily denying his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, the district
court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and
conclusions of law to comply with Kansas Supreme Court Rule
183(j) (2019 Kan. S.Ct. R. 228).
State first argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over
the appeal because Ponds failed to file his notice of appeal
in a timely manner. On the merits, the State argues that the
district court correctly denied Ponds' K.S.A. 60-1507
This Court Have Jurisdiction Over This Appeal?
begin with the State questions this court's jurisdiction
over this appeal. Ponds does not address the jurisdictional
issue. Whether jurisdiction exists is a question of law over
which an appellate court's scope of ...